*610 MEMORANDUM **

G. Gregory Williams, a Chapter 13 debtor, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s November 29, 2004, and November 30, 2004, orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo jurisdictional issues and the district court’s decision on appeal from a bankruptcy court. Mantz v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization (In re Mantz), 343 F.3d 1207, 1211 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

Williams’ challenge to the bankruptcy court’s recusal order is barred by the law of the case doctrine. See Williams v. Gordon, Gaumer, Bovshow, Levi Estates, LLC (In re Williams), 234 Fed.Appx. 741, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying recusal); Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir. 1991) (under the law of the case doctrine, one panel of an appellate court will not reconsider questions that another panel has decided on a prior appeal in the same case).

As we held previously, In re Williams, 234 Fed.Appx. at 741-42, we lack jurisdiction to review the bankruptcy court’s remand order, see Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124, 128-29, 116 S.Ct. 494, 133 L.Ed.2d 461 (1995) (court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a bankruptcy court’s order remanding a case to state court).

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review orders issued in state court proceedings. See Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A, 525 F.3d 855, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a well-established jurisdictional rule prohibiting federal courts from exercising appellate review over final state court judgments.”); Dubinka v. Judges of Sup.Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 221 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions.”).

We reject Williams’ remaining contentions.

AFFIRMED.